Search

Coconut water is used as an alternative to conventional sports drinks for hydration during endurance cycling; however, evidence supporting its use is limited. This study determined if drinking coconut water compared to a sports drink altered cycling performance and physiology. In a randomized crossover trial, 19 experienced male ( n = 15) and female ( n = 4) cyclists (age 30 ± 9 years, body mass 79 ± 11 kg, V̇O 2 peak 55 ± 8 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ) completed two experimental trials, consuming either a commercially available sports drink or iso-calorific coconut water during 90 min of sub-maximal cycling at 70% of their peak power output, followed by a simulated, variable gradient, 20 km time trial. Blood glucose, lactate, sweat loss, and heart rate were monitored throughout the 90 min of sub-maximal cycling, as well as the time trial performance (seconds) and average power (watts). A repeated measures analysis of variance and effect sizes (Cohen's d) analysis were applied. There were no significant differences ( p ≥ 0.05) between the treatments for any of the measured physiological or performance variables. Additionally, the effect size analysis showed only trivial (d ≤ 0.2) differences between the treatments for all the measured variables, except blood glucose, which was lower in the coconut water trial compared to the sports drink trial (d = 0.31). Consuming coconut water had a similar effect on the cycling time trial performance and the physiological responses to consuming a commercially available sports drink.

There is a wide variance in the magnitude of physiological adaptations after resistance or endurance training. The incidence of "non" or "poor" responders to training has been reported to represent as high as 40% of the project's sample. However, the incidence of poor responders to training can be ameliorated with manipulation of either the training frequency, intensity, type and duration. Additionally, global non-response to cardio-respiratory fitness training is eliminated when evaluating several health measures beyond just the target variables as at least one or more measure improves. More research is required to determine if altering resistance training variables results in a more favourable response in individuals with an initial poor response to resistance training. Moreover, we recommend abandoning the term "poor" responders, as ultimately the magnitude of change in cardiorespiratory fitness in response to endurance training is similar in "poor" and "high" responders if the training frequency is subsequently increased. Therefore, we propose "stubborn" responders as a more appropriate term. Future research should focus on developing viable physiological and lifestyle screening tests that identify likely stubborn responders to conventional exercise training guidelines before the individual engages with training. Exerkines, DNA damage, metabolomic responses in blood, saliva and breath, gene sequence, gene expression and epigenetics are candidate biomarkers that warrant investigation into their relationship with trainability. Crucially, viable biomarker screening tests should show good construct validity to distinguish between different exercise loads, and possess excellent sensitivity and reliability. Furthermore "red flag" tests of likely poor responders to training should be practical to assess in clinical settings and be affordable and non-invasive. Early identification of stubborn responders would enable optimization of training programs from the onset of training to maintain exercise motivation and optimize the impact on training adaptations and health.